Hello. This question occured to me as I was reading someone's reply to a thread (which was not at Massassi). I presented it in the chat, where it didn't really take off, so I'll ask here. Here is my question:

When people use the "We saved you in [insert war]" argument, and I mean any people, because Americans aren't the only one who use it, why don't they realize that they didn't do anything, except sit there and feast on other people's accomplishments?

Thank you.

------------------
If you can read this, you need better glasses.

I've never used that, I'm pasicfist.

------------------

Because they're idiots?

------------------
WAITER: Here’s your green salad, sir.
ANAKIN: What? You fool, I told you NO CROUTONS! Aaaaaaargh!

Yes. I like that reason.

------------------
Frogblast the Vent Core!

--End of Line--

"Americans aren't the only ones who've used it?" ... er, maybe I've just forgotten, but I don't recollect America ever using it. Actually the only time I remember anybody ever using it was the French saying they helped us succeed from Britain. And Flexor's right, it is a stupid thing to say (regardless of who's ever said it - the French OR any other countries, which I honestly don't ever remember hearing it from)

------------------
Do you have stairs in your house?

They should say my Great-Grandfather saved your Great-Grandfather. So realy their ancestors saved them because it would be difficult to exist with out Grandparents.

He said Americans, not America as in the government. And if you have never heard an American say that.....you need to get out more. O_o

It's like that with sports too. "Yeah, we whooped your ***! We destroyed you! You suck!" Since when did the fat guy in the stands with no shirt, spray painted chest hair and face, a beer in one hand and a foam finger on the other hand play for anyone?

But I can understand the "We" thing as in is being used with the wars. When they say "We" they mean the nation as a whole. At worst it is inaccurate considering time and generation difference.

------------------
The sooner you realize I'm right the better off you will be.

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited June 14, 2004).]

I've seen it countless times in debates here at Massassi.

I'll second that. Mostly Americans saying "we saved your *** in WW2" to British people.



------------------
"If there's one thing I've learned it's this - you just can't shake hands with a fist" - David Allen Coe

Those people need to go back to History class. We did NOT save them, we HELPED them. Saving would imply that they weren't doing a damned thing and we fought the Germans off all by ourselves. We helped the British defeat the Germans. We helped the rest of Europe defeat the Germans. We didn't "save" anyone.

------------------
Frogblast the Vent Core!

--End of Line--

Along with British & Soviet allies, we did save France, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, et al. Those were all occupied by Germany. There was the French Resistance.



------------------
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit, sed diam nonummy nibh euismod tincidunt ut laoreet dolore magna aliquam erat volutpat.

We did not save the British or Soviets. There was a reason there was a three way alliance between Britian, America, and USSR: All three nations were necessary to defeat the Germans.

Without the Russians the Germans could focus most their forces in North Africa and Western Europe. That's besides the fact that the Soviets took out Germany's elite panzer units, strained their supplies and man power.

Without the British the Americans would not have the numbers to take on the Germans. The British also spurned on the Americans because whenever the British would make a really good commando unit or a new kind of tactic, the Americans would force themselves to come up with something better. Without the British, D-day probably wouldn't have happened and the Russians would have been overwhelmed since North Africa wouldn't be a problem.

Without the Americans the British wouldn't have received the supplies they needed early in the war and when America joined the war, that greatly boosted the troops fighting with the British. The British, Germans, and Russians had been at war for awhile and the troops were getting exhausted. America brought fresh troops into the war for the allies while the axis didn't get that advantage. Because America joined D-day happened which relieved the strain on Russia on the Eastern Front.

All three were a necessary part.

btw, we didn't save those eastern european countries. All that happened was they came under the leadership of a different tyrant. The Polish are still bitter about that to this day(considering they fought the hardest guerilla warfare against the Nazi's and as a reward they came under the control of Stalin).

I'm done.

------------------
The sooner you realize I'm right the better off you will be.

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited June 14, 2004).]

Yeah, we certainly didn't help Russia at all.. Stalin was accusing western generals of cowardice after losing eons of men..

------------------
Have a good one,
Freelancer

I really do hate the 'we' thing. If you're to take credit for things achieved by people that happened to be born on the same landmass, you should take the blame for the atrocities commited by them too.
I don't see many people saying "we killed thousands of Vietnamese and destroyed their country" or "we are torturing and humiliating Iraqi prisoners of war". That's all about 'individual soldiers' that are totally distanced from you.

I'll use 'we' or 'us' as a sense of ownership and being part of the country.

If I remember History correctly (and I should - I've got a kakking exam on it in an hour) the Brits, French, Russians et al were really at a stalemate with the Germans and Austrians (due to the Anschluss) during WW2. I think it would have mattered if one side ran out of a supply of men, though. The Americans really just allowed us to push a bit more - it's like building a bigger butteress on the side of a wonky wall.

------------------
[ Massassiism ] [ Cynicism ] [ Fanaticism ]
Sell your soul for a cookie?

succeed.



------------------
Saberopus: omfq musical genuis j00 >mozart
Thrawn42689: Mozart = n00b

"Why didn't France attack Iraq? I mean, we liberated their a**es in WWII! They're so ungrateful and rude."

A common argument I often hear. What they forget is that without the French, we may not have won the Revolutionary War, henceforth resulting in even more taxes and we'd still be under the control of Britain.

People suck at knowledge, and exceed in ignorance. Woo!

------------------
[16:38] Correction: dick tracy was a real man
[16:38] happydud: Actually... He wasn't.
[19:08] Dormouse: hi, my name's happydud and i'm passive-aggress.. SHUTUP!! *stabs nearby orphan*
[You have gained 3 Dark Side Points]

I am going to continue to use "we" when talking about the wars and such. It's short hand for "the soldiers of my nation that fought back then".

And don't try this "Oh, well we fought for them so now they should support us" arguement(in whatever context to wars). Time, changed public opinion, shifts of power, and just world events in general prevent that from being a prudent choice of foreign policy. A "I helped you so now you help me" approach might be appropriate for two buddies within the span of a year, but not for nations that have events occuring decades from each other.

------------------
The sooner you realize I'm right the better off you will be.

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited June 15, 2004).]

i think you mean 'why didn't the french support our efforts in iraq'... no one asked them to attack (or expected them to), just to agree :/



------------------
Saberopus: omfq musical genuis j00 >mozart
Thrawn42689: Mozart = n00b

agh once, again...


eons of men?




------------------
Saberopus: omfq musical genuis j00 >mozart
Thrawn42689: Mozart = n00b

No, it isn't.
'tsomntfbt' or something would be. You could just as easily say 'they'. 'We' directly states that you consider yourself part of that group.
Now, that's okay, but if you are to take credit for the actions of others, then you should take the blame for them too. Either you treat yourself as an individual and them as individuals with which you had/have no relationship, or you take the good with the bad.
If you are to celebrate how 'you' fought the Nazis in WW2, then you must mourn the thousands of Koreans that 'you' killed in the Korean war.
If you are to lay that blame on individual soldiers and generals, then you too must give the credit to the soldiers and generals of WW2.

Mort, get a life. It's symantics for christ's sake. No one is assuming nor are they taking credit for what WWII soldiers did or otherwise when they say "We". It is just a term of familiarity and used to simplify thoughts to make them easier to communicate. Get over it. Same goes with everyone else.

------------------
The sooner you realize I'm right the better off you will be.

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited June 15, 2004).]